Farrar v. Kingsley

126 N.Y.S. 584
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1910
StatusPublished

This text of 126 N.Y.S. 584 (Farrar v. Kingsley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farrar v. Kingsley, 126 N.Y.S. 584 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1910).

Opinion

BROWN, J.

In February, 1909, the defendant Nathan R. Williams and one Roswell W. Crosby conceived the plan of forming a. copartnership of several business men of Franklinville, N. Y., to-purchase a large quantity of shingles, and sell them by the car load to lumber merchants in Western New York and Pennsylvania. Various interviews were had by Williams and Crosby with the plaintiff and the remaining defendants upon the subject and the method to be adopted in managing the financial affairs of the business. It was known to all the parties that Crosby was of no financial responsibility, possessed a questionable character, a low type of a man, but had made something of a success as a salesman of shingles. The defendant Williams was of high "financial and business standing, being president of the leading bank of the town, a large landowner, had been a keen observer of men, a capable, shrewd, hard-headed, successful man, with an experience of many years as a drover, buyer, and speculator, enjoying the confidence of the plaintiff and the defendants, some of whom were stockholders and directors of his bank. At the request of Williams, and upon his assurance that the financial affairs of the proposed company would be taken entirely from the hands of Crosby, that Crosby was not to be a member of the coniv pany, but was to buy and sell the shingles for the company for one-third „of the profits, the plaintiff and the defendants Nathan R. Williams, Avery W. Kingsley, Lewis H. Stilwell, Guy C. Ames, Walter M. Whitcomb, William H. Bates, and W. Scott Baker on the 11th day of February, 1909, entered into a written agreement or article-of equal copartnership for the purpose of buying 8,000,000 shingles under the name of Franklinville Shingle Company, and to continue-the same until such shingles should be sold. Shortly thereafter, at a meeting of the members of the company, Crosby, who was present, exhibited a telegram from a shingle dealer in Grand Rapids,. Mich., to the effect that white cedar, sound-butt shingles could be bought there at $2.20 per thousand; and for the purpose of providing funds to make a purchase of 8,000,000 shingles, and paying $1 per thousand upon the purchase price, the plaintiff, Avery W. Kingsley, Walter M. Whitcomb, William H. Bates, Guy C. Ames, and W. Scott Baker each paid into the Union National Bank the sum of $1,000 to the credit of the shingle company, it being understood by the plaintiff and other members of the company that the defendants Williams and Stilwell were to each pay in a like sum, making a total fund of $8,000. The plaintiff, Bates, Baker and others of the company, expressing their lack of confidence in Crosby, refused to place such fund in his hands to control or manage in such a purchase, whereupon it was determined that the funds of the company, the sum of $8,000, should be placed in the hands of defendant Wil[586]*586liams for the purpose of seeing that the purchase of this large quantity of shingles was honestly made, the moneys properly applied on the purchase price', to the end that the company should surely be protected from all danger of loss by the trickery or suspected dishonesty of Crosby; that while Crosby’s services would be of value in making such purchase, on account of his knowledge of values and grades of shingles, he was to accompany defendant Williams to the shingle dealers and aid in making such purchase, in no event was such money to get into his, Crosby’s, hands.

The defendant Williams accepted this trust, and apparently undertook its execution. He procured from the bank the $6,000 that had been paid by the plaintiff, Kingsley, Whitcomb, Bates, Ames, and Baker in the shape of three New York drafts, one for $2,000, dated February 17, 1909, one for $1,000, dated February 17, 1909, and one for $3,000, dated February 18, 1909, each payable to his order, and on the 20th of February, 1909, in company with Crosby, left Franklinville for Grand Rapids.

It is contended by defendant Williams that he also took with him $1,530 in currency to be used, together with a check for $470 that might be given as and for the share of himself and defendant Stilwell, in the cash payment of the purchase price of any shingles that might be bought. While the defendant Williams and Crosby were in Grand Rapids 8,000,000 shingles were purchased, and they returned to Franklinville; the defendant Williams reporting to the plaintiff, Bates, and Whitcomb that he had bought from a dealer named Smith 5.000. 000 shingles and from Tucker & Harper Lumber Company 3.000. 000 shingles for $2.20 a thousand, that at first these dealers did not want to sell to him because he was not a jobber, but that he went to a bank in Grand Rapids, cashed his drafts, and planked the $8,000 right down to these dealers, and that he got the shingles. The understanding of all the parties was that the balance of the purchase price of the shingles was to be paid as fast as the shingles were shipped to various merchants on sales made by Crosby. After Crosby’s return to Franklinville, he entered upon the business of selling these shingles; orders were procured; several car loads shipped by the Grand Rapids dealers to fill these orders. Substantially all shingles shipped to merchants to whom Crosby had made sales were refused, owing to their poor quality. Crosby, assuming to act for the shingle company, and the company itself, through its treasurer, the cashier of the Union National Bank, adjusted all such claims upon a basis of about $1.50 a thousand. Shortly thereafter the defendant .Williams sold all his interest in the 8,000,000 shingles to the defendant Ira M. Godfrey, receiving therefor a stock of groceries valued at $2,000. The fact of this transfer of interest and the constant trouble with the quality of the shingles resulted on the 5th of May in the plaintiff and Bates, Baker and others calling on the defendant Williams for an explanation and asking for the papers and documents by which the 8,000,000 shingles were bought of the Grand Rapids people. Whereupon the defendant Williams then for the first time after his return from Grand Rapids produced and exhibited docu-' [587]*587ments showing on their face that the Grand Rapids dealers had sold the 8,000,000 shingles to Crosby by a paper that did not state the consideration or amount per thousand that Crosby paid, and that Crosby by independent contracts had sold to the defendant Williams, as agent for Franklinville Shingle Company, 6,000,000 shingles for $2.20 per thousand, that Crosby had sold to the firm of Stilwell & Williams 2,000,000 shingles at $2.20- per thousand, and that Stilwell & Williams had sold to the Franklinville Shingle Company 2,000,000 shingles at $2.50 per thousand at Rochester rate of freight, the sale at $2.20 per thousand being based on Green Bay, Wis., rate of freight, which was the first information that the plaintiff, Bates and Baker had that the 8,000,000 shingles had been purchased from Crosby. The plaintiff, not being satisfied with the appearance of the deal, as revealed by these papers, and the situation as to the poor quality of the shingles, went to Grand Rapids, and there learned that 3,000,000 of the 8,000,000 shingles had been sold by the Tucker & Harper Lumber Company to Crosby for $1.50 per thousand, Crosby paying $900 down on the purchase, being 30 cents per thousand, leaving $1.20 per thousand to be paid as the 3,000,000 or any part thereof should be shipped. The plaintiff also learned that 5,000,000 shingles had been sold by one Frank P.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 N.Y.S. 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrar-v-kingsley-nysupct-1910.